IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5238  OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.25383 of 2008)

M/s. Buzrak Bus Service Regd.                ...Appellant(s)

versus

Addl. State Transport Commissioner & Anr.   ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The  appellant  was  granted  regular  stage  carriage  

permit for operating mini bus on Samana – Baladkalan via  

Kadrabad – Madampur route with four return trips daily.  In  

2004, the appellant submitted an application for diversion  

of the route for operating the mini bus via Chhana instead  

of going via Kadrabad and Madampur and also for extension of  

route up to Sangrur from Baladkalan via Bhawanigarh.  After  

conducting  survey,  District  Transport  Officer,  Patiala  

submitted report with the recommendation that diversion and  

extension of the route will be in public interest.  By an  

order  dated  14.1.2005,  the  State  Transport  Commissioner  

allowed the application of the appellant and granted the  

desired  diversion  and  extension.   In  compliance  of  that  

order, the concerned authority made an endorsement on the  

appellant’s permit enabling it to operate the bus on the  

modified route.

...2/-

- 2 -  

After  one  month  and  seven  days,  the  State  

Government, in exercise of power vested in it under Section  

68(3)(ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the  

Act”), issued notification dated 22.2.2005 whereby certain  

routes  were  formulated.   In  the  backdrop  of  this  

development,  Pepsu  State  Road  Transport  Corporation  

(respondent no.2 herein) filed a revision under Section 90  

of the Act with the prayer that order passed by the State  

Transport Commissioner may be set aside because the same is  

contrary to notification dated 22.2.2005.   

After hearing the representatives of the appellant,  

respondent no.2 and the State Transport Commissioner, the  

Tribunal  allowed  the  revision  and  set  aside  order  dated  

14.1.2005 by observing that the same would frustrate the  

object of the notification issued under Section 68(3)(ca) of  

the Act.  The appellant challenged the Tribunal’s order in  

Writ Petition No. 3108 of 2007, which was dismissed by the  

Division Bench of the High Court by placing reliance on  

order dated 12.3.2008 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 3932  

of  2007  [Kesar  Singh  v.  State  Transport  Commissioner,  

Punjab, Chandigarh].

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the  

Tribunal committed serious error in quashing the order of  

the  State  Transport  Commissioner  on  the  ground  that  

diversion  and  extension  of  the  route  of  the  appellant’s  

permit  would  frustrate  the  object  of  notification  dated  

22.2.2005  ignoring  that  the  said  notification  is  not  

retrospective  in  nature.   She  further  argued  that  even  

though a specific argument was raised before the Tribunal  

and the High  Court that notification dated 22.2.2005 is not

...3/-

- 3 -  

applicable to the appellant’s case, the same has not been  

dealt with and decided.  Learned counsel for the respondents  

supported the impugned orders and argued that even though  

notification  dated  22.2.2005  was  not  retrospective  in  

character, the Tribunal did not commit any error by relying  

upon the same because the diversion and extension sanctioned  

by  the  State  Transport  Commissioner  would  enable  the  

appellant to operate on the monopoly route, which is legally  

impermissible.   

In the context of the submission made by the learned  

counsel  for  the  respondents,  we  repeatedly  asked  him  to  

point out from the pleadings and orders of the Tribunal and  

the  High  Court  that  the  question  of  overlapping  of  the  

monopoly route by the appellant was raised and decided, but  

he could not draw our attention to any such pleading or  

finding.

A reading of the Tribunal’s order makes it clear  

that diversion and extension of the route sanctioned by the  

State Transport Commissioner in favour of the appellant was  

set aside only on the ground that the same would frustrate  

the object of notification dated 22.2.2005.  While doing so,  

the  Tribunal  completely  overlooked  the  fact  that  

notification dated 22.2.2005 is not retrospective and the  

same  did  not  affect  the  orders  passed  by  the  competent  

authorities prior to that date.  In our view, as the order  

for diversion and extension of the appellant’s route was  

passed by the State Transport Commissioner prior to the date  

of issue of notification dated 22.2.2005, the Tribunal was  

not  justified  in  setting  aside  the  order  of  the  State  

Transport  Commissioner on  the ground  that  diversion  and

...4/-

- 4 -  

extension  granted  to  the  appellant  would  frustrate  the  

object  of  the  said  notification.   The  High  Court  too  

committed an error by confirming the order of the Tribunal  

without  even  adverting  to  the  appellant’s  plea  that  

notification  dated  22.2.2005  was  not  retrospective  in  

character and did not affect the orders passed prior to that  

date.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned orders  

are set aside and the revision filed by respondent no.2  

before the Tribunal is dismissed.

......................J.              [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.              [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, August 10, 2009.